Not long ago, shortly after the fallout from Dawkins' recent suggestion that it would be immoral to knowingly bring any child with Down Syndrome into the world, I lamented that no doubt, many in the mainstream media would latch onto this as representing the officialatheist position.

I'll agree that most of it was in the delivery. Dawkins, who is falsely portrayed regularly by religious media as some kind of Pope of the Atheists speaking for countless mindless followers, should be aware that tweets like the above without proper qualification that 'for what it's worth, my own choice would be to abort' is absolutely essential for it not to come off as some sort moral decree from on high. This isn't Dawkins' fault, it's just a sad reality.

I reacted like several other atheists did. My wife and I both decided to not abort a fetus that tests positive for Down Syndrome. Although our son is not a Down child, he is autistic (which I realize is not the same thing but is still considered by many a disability).

The point is, I apparently do not have the same morality that Dawkins has -- and many many parents who are statistically likely to be religious! On this count, I do not agree with Dawkins but I have no ill will towards him -- just as I understand why many parents choose to abort when confronted with Down Syndrome and other disabilities -- I respect their decision and believe they ought to have the choice to decide whether or not they can handle it.

I have no ill-will towards Dawkins. I think he's done a lot of excellent work and it was his book The God Delusion that finally gave me the resolve to call myself an atheist. Like me, he is a human being with ideas and feelings and a father. On this topic, we do not see eye-to-eye and that's okay -- he doesn't speak for all atheists all the time.

With this background, let me point out yet another tiresome article out that seems to assume whatever Dawkins says is a kind of papal pronouncement of atheistic doctrine from on high. Over at the New York Post (unsurprisingly), Naomi Schaefer Riley wrote an opinion piece:

Can you see how even the title dooms this article to be a silly and inaccurate over generalization of the atheist? You know, The Atheist -- that guy?

Dawkins, like many of the so-called New Atheists (though they’re not so new anymore) finds himself regularly baffled at the way the public reacts to his pronouncements. He sounds a little like Mr. Spock when he wonders why there is this “wanton eagerness” to misunderstand his perfectly reasonable logic as cruel or heartless when, as he notes, so many people make just the choice he suggests.

Okay, at least she's saying many atheists and not all of them. Some atheists would have been a better choice. The trope being pulled out here is the cold, scientific, unfeeling atheist -- a dour and soulless creature who does not understand human emotion. Indeed, how can the atheist understand the beauty of life, love or the mysteries of existence, right?

It is possible that there are more people out there who subscribe to the same understanding of morality that Richard Dawkins does — a utilitarian view that human life is measured in nothing besides worldly pleasures. (The old, the very young and the infirm have a clear disadvantage in this calculation.)

Worldly pleasures? As opposed to other-worldly pleasures? There is nothing wrong with a utilitarian view that human life can be measured by the sum of one's happiness and fulfillment -- perhaps she meant to say that. I believe that most people actually do these sorts of ethical calculations without realizing it. They instinctively know that happiness is good and suffering is bad along with the ability to empathize with their children and others. They may also couch it in their own religious tradition.

There is nothing wrong with maximizing happiness and minimizing suffering in this world. Of course, worldly pleasures is meant to be a negative thing -- it's got a bad rap in Christianity where I suppose one must focus themselves on what allegedly happens after this world. However, there is nothing wrong with pleasure here and now and a great deal of fulfillment can be obtained from helping others to be happy and flourish -- e.g. Humanism.

She also trots out the false assumption that Dawkins -- and by implication those who follow and atheistic utilitarian worldview -- care little about the very young and weak. This is a false equivalency as Dawkins is referring to early abortion and not to the killing of human beings. This is the difference between those who are pro-choice and anti-abortion. (This doesn't make his delivery any less harsh sounding, though.)

All in all though, it's the title that bothers me the most, I guess. The content of the article doesn't come right out and say it, yet I still think it props up a grossly over-generalized assumption.

The article should have been titled: Why Richard Dawkins' call to screen against Down Syndome is doomed

I still wouldn't have agreed, but at least the title would have been a little more accurate.

Saturday, 23 August 2014

I know I'm going to catch flack for this from all sides, but Richard Dawkins' latest tweets about terminating pregnancies when the tests come back positive for Down's Syndrome really struck a nerve with me. I usually stay out of this stuff but I can't stay quiet about this one. I'm sure you've all seen this tweet.

@InYourFaceNYer Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice.
— Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) August 20, 2014

Before I go any further, I'd like to make a full disclosure. I'm the father of an autistic child and the husband of an autistic woman. Even though I have no personal experience parenting children with Down's Syndrome, I still have strong feelings about disability and ableism.
I've read Dawkins' apology, Abortion & Down Syndrome: An Apology for Letting Slip the Dogs of Twitterwar and at some level I can agree with him. Although, even the title irritates me because it screams non-pology to me -- it implies he's not apologizing for anything other than causing a ruckus.

But then Twitter is no place for implications or nuance. It's definitely no place for expressing opinions about difficult and complex issues. Dawkins, as an accomplished author really should be aware of this and it leads me to think that he really doesn't understand that this is a complicated and highly emotional subject.

That’s what I would have said, if a woman were to ask my advice. As you might notice, it takes a lot more than 140 characters! I condensed it down to a tweet, and the result was understandably seen in some quarters as rather heartless and callous: “Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice.” Of course I regret using abbreviated phraseology which caused so much upset. I never wanted to “cry havoc”!

That's an understatement! Here's what Dawkins would have said if he had more than 140 characters -- like in a blog or even a book!

“Obviously the choice would be yours. For what it’s worth, my own choice would be to abort the Down fetus and, assuming you want a baby at all, try again. Given a free choice of having an early abortion or deliberately bringing a Down child into the world, I think the moral and sensible choice would be to abort. And, indeed, that is what the great majority of women, in America and especially in Europe, actually do. I personally would go further and say that, if your morality is based, as mine is, on a desire to increase the sum of happiness and reduce suffering, the decision to deliberately give birth to a Down baby, when you have the choice to abort it early in the pregnancy, might actually be immoral from the point of view of the child’s own welfare. I agree that that personal opinion is contentious and needs to be argued further, possibly to be withdrawn. In any case, you would probably be condemning yourself as a mother (or yourselves as a couple) to a lifetime of caring for an adult with the needs of a child. Your child would probably have a short life expectancy but, if she did outlive you, you would have the worry of who would care for her after you are gone. No wonder most people choose abortion when offered the choice. Having said that, the choice would be entirely yours and I would never dream of trying to impose my views on you or anyone else.”

I'll agree that most of it was in the delivery. Dawkins, who is falsely portrayed regularly by religious media as some kind of Pope of the Atheists speaking for countless mindless followers, should be aware that tweets like the above without proper qualification that 'for what it's worth, my own choice would be to abort' is absolutely essential for it not to come off as some sort moral decree from on high. This isn't Dawkins' fault, it's just a sad reality.

It is also true that the majority of people do, indeed, abort early to avoid having a child with Down's Syndrome. In fact, my wife and I were pressured quite a bit to get amniocentesis. The doctor informed us it would be so we could screen against Down's. However, we both had previously decided we would not abort to prevent against Down's. We did not see this as immoral like Dawkins does.

I personally would go further and say that, if your morality is based, as mine is, on a desire to increase the sum of happiness and reduce suffering, the decision to deliberately give birth to a Down baby, when you have the choice to abort it early in the pregnancy, might actually be immoral from the point of view of the child’s own welfare.

I think this contains the very false assumption that children with Down's Syndrome automatically reduce the sum of happiness. Who's happiness? What sort of happiness?

Although more challenging -- and perhaps fraught with some more suffering -- parents of Downs syndrome children do find themselves happy. In the end, all of parenting contains sacrifice and suffering! I've read several articles by parents of Down children who simply do not understand what Dawkins is talking about and are not the slightest bit impressed with his judgement that their children do not contribute to human happiness. What is Dawkins saying here?

The children themselves are often happy as well. They are kids, after all. They are not in constant pain. As far as I can tell, they are not suffering.

In any case, you would probably be condemning yourself as a mother (or yourselves as a couple) to a lifetime of caring for an adult with the needs of a child. Your child would probably have a short life expectancy but, if she did outlive you, you would have the worry of who would care for her after you are gone. No wonder most people choose abortion when offered the choice.

Yes. I think these are all important things to consider for couples. I agree that it is wrong to force this upon anyone and to do so would likely breed terrible resentment and frustration that would be counterproductive to both parent and child. I've seen this before with some parents of autistic children who have left some horrible comments on my blog about how they cannot stand their children. These are people who -- if the technology existed -- probably should have opted to abort early to reduce suffering.

That said, we know what Dawkins would do -- and I'm fine with that. And we know what other parents would do -- also fine. The problem was with Dawkins' delivery and his automatic assumption that Down Syndrome is a net negative -- a non-contribution to society. It sort of implies he means a drag on society. I'll go no further. I don't want to drag this downhill, but you can probably tell where this path can lead in the minds of some of his readers.

@InYourFaceNYer People on that spectrum have a great deal to contribute, Maybe even an enhanced ability in some respects. DS not enhanced.
— Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) August 20, 2014

I don't know what he bases this on. Is it his own personal experience or something more? It is this absolute judgement which disturbs me the most. He is here comparing one broad spectrum of functionality with another and calling one a enhancement and another a negative.

It's undeniable that there are autistic people with a complex of delays and disabilities which can place them far below the functionality of many Down's people -- as far as society judges them and as far as their abilities to be self-sufficient and autonomous. I've also read articles about the great ability to carry on friendships and to express love possessed by many children with Downs Syndrome which could be judged by broader society as excelling the social skills of some autistic people. This is not black and white, and I think this tweet sums up Dawkins' seeming inabilities to see the greys and at least acknowledge them.

And yes, I have concerns about how my son will get on in the world and so does another father of an autistic child I've spoken with. There's just one thing. This is thinking very very far into a future we know nothing about. The quality of care depends very much on the society we will live in and our own circumstances. The future is unknown. Anything can happen.

I have no ill-will towards Dawkins. I think he's done a lot of excellent work and it was his book The God Delusion that finally gave me the resolve to call myself an atheist. Like me, he is a human being with ideas and feelings and a father. On this topic, we do not see eye-to-eye and that's okay -- he doesn't speak for all atheists all the time.

Friday, 1 August 2014

Richard Dawkins in a picture that doesn't make him look like an evil ogre. (source)

I give Elissa Strauss over at the Jewish Daily Forward kudos for clarity. She gives a very concise illustration of an underlying malevolent sentiment which I have lately found to be obfuscated in current coverage of Richard Dawkins' most recent Twitter gaffe. Up to this point, I thought I would have to dig through the innuendo to get to the underlying implied messaging against atheists but Strauss makes it clear as day.

In her post, When Atheists Talk About Rape -- rather than 'when Dawkins talks about rape' -- not far below the requisite ugliest-and-most-unflattering-picture-of-Dawkins-one-can-find, she concludes with the following gross generalization.

Dawkins comments don’t just expose his own capability for misguided thinking, but of Atheism’s as well. His thoughts on rape reveal what happens when Atheism becomes as much an orthodoxy as any religion, a belief system through which all thoughts and feelings must be processed and any lingering subjectivity sidelined. This tendency hardly appears to a predominant one among Atheists, but it is clearly a risk just like it is in more literal-minded approaches to Judaism, Christianity or Islam.

Dawkins has faith in science and logic. He believes in finding order through categorization, logic and proof. Except the experience of something like rape, which happens to individuals in a wide variety of circumstances and is colored by their personal histories and emotional make-ups, just can’t be subjected to any scientific system. Sure we can work hard to find a societally-agreed upon definition of rape for our legal system, but the actual effect it has on a victim is something only that victim gets to decide.

As our society continues to polarize, or at least as the media reports it, into firm believers and non-believers, it is crucial that both sides make room for the subjective nature of the individual experience and don’t let whatever orthodoxies guide them to get in the way. Otherwise we find ourselves doing something like, eh, ranking rape.

Eh, a lack of belief in a god does not in any way affect opinion on rape. One need only look at popular atheist blogs and the Twitter machine to discover that the very largest group of those who were offended are very likely to be atheists -- you know, people who care what Dawkins tweets late at night.

And this religion of atheism. Do tell me more about how being certain we do not believe in a god turns us into inhuman, unfeeling, cold and scientific steel-hearted robots. I assume Elissa doesn't believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster (tomato sauce be upon him). I therefore feel sorry for her inevitable lack of emotional and spiritual depth.

One more thing. Dawkins is only the most famous atheists; the most influential atheist; the most followed, adored, revered, worshipped Pope of all atheists because a mostly hostile media have elected him to be so. They were also the ones to coin the term 'New Atheists.' There is nothing new about those who do not wish to grovel to any deity or man - we are called freethinkers and they have been around probably since the beginning. It's just that we no longer wish to remain silently accepting the unproven nonsense that is theism and we will now speak out -- even if we risk being called fundamentalists.
But then, this isn't really about Dawkins at all.

There is one point in Strauss' conclusion upon which both I and many many many atheists agree: the actual effect it has on a victim is something only that victim gets to decide. Although things like laws must, by nature, be objective, Dawkins' tweets did indeed lack sensitivity and non-believers were the very first ones to point this out.

Monday, 10 March 2014

Sometimes I read an article and just end up sitting there with my mouth hanging open wondering to myself how I'm supposed to react to it, what does it mean, do the tubes is my brainbox have enough capacity to process it?

There’s a religious slot broadcast every morning on the radio, called Thought for the Day, and it’s marvellous. Because it usually involves some bishop telling you what he did the day before, and shovelling Jesus into it somehow. So it will go: “Last night I was watching an episode of Ramsay’s Kitchen Nightmares, in which a poor hapless restaurateur once again found himself on the wrong end of Gordon’s somewhat ribald invective. And I began to think to myself ‘Isn’t this a bit like Jesus’? Because Jesus too went out for supper one night, and that turned into a bit of a nightmare. Good morning.”

The fact that this quaint tradition endures with few complaints, despite a campaign led by the National Secular Society, suggests that the modern atheists are losing. So does the popularity of The Book of Mormon, the gloriously blasphemous musical I’ve finally seen, which, despite a swearing, camp Jesus and a plot revolving around religion being made-up nonsense, is strangely affectionate towards religion. You’re invited to judge the evangelists on what they do, rather than on what they believe, and that may be a vital part of its success, compared with the modern atheists whose attitude is: “Of COURSE Jesus didn’t rise from the dead, you idiots.”

So religion, the once all-pervading ruler of kings, emperors and countries has been reduced to a morning radio segment about how Jesus helped the line cook get through Gordon Ramsay's potty mouth. This is somehow a sign that religion's still doing just fine? Checkmate, atheists!

The broadway musical Book of Mormon, written by two atheists and sure to have been banned only a century ago and to have led to the burning of said atheists a couple of centuries before; how is this not a sign of religion losing its relevance and grip on our culture? A song and dance routine that affectionately undermines the primary claim of religion by pointing out it is merely a made up human artifice is not indicative of a weakening of the religious resolve? Really?

What could author Mark Steel be talking about? It's hard to say because then he goes on a well-worn attack against those nasty New Atheists who dare to question, ridicule or mock those who believe myths for which there is no credible evidence.

Richard Dawkins, for example, complained that a Muslim political writer wasn’t a “serious journalist” because he “believes Mohamed flew to heaven on a winged horse”. I suppose if Dawkins had been in Washington when Martin Luther King made his famous speech, he’d have shouted: “Never mind your dream, how can Jonah have lived in a whale, you silly Christian knob?”

I still don't see what the big fuss is with Richard Dawkins' comment. For me, the job of a serious journalist is to be skeptical and to dig for the facts. They should be as close to reality as possible. A journalist who seriously believes someone flew into heaven on a winged horse doesn't strike me as someone who has done all of his homework. In principle it's no different from a journalist who believes Obama is a shape-shifting lizard; John Smith found gold tablets in his backyard and translated them with a magical hat; or Thetans are the ghostly remains of a civilization that was blown to smithereens inside of a volcano with nukes billions of years ago.

Of course, this is all technical. I'm absolutely certain one could be a Muslim in name but not believe such fairy stories - a secular Muslim. And even if this were not the case, humans are gifted with a well-developed ability to compartmentalize competing beliefs. So the same mind could hold everything else up to a strong and rational critical eye and still believe in the most insane mythologies simultaneously. The journalist could be an excellent one, just don't trust him with any stories about religion that intersect this compartmentalized woo. Dawkins has every right to call him out on the Pegasus myth.

As for the comparison between Martin Luther King and journalist Mehdi Hasan, it is a false equivalence. It's Hasan's job to report on facts and communicate them to his readers. It was King's 'job' to stir the hearts and inspire America to rise up and fight for civil rights. Steele should be aware that facts are seldom required to arouse the passions of one's readership.

Steele seems to go on to say that folks like Dawkins are vile for judging the religious based on what they believe.

It’s almost as if the modern atheist is in agreement with the religious fundamentalist that a person’s attitude towards God is the most important aspect of their character.

As a modern atheist, I cannot help but feel rather sorry for those who believe in God, but this is their right. However, the real problem is those who let their religious beliefs affect their actions in ways that affect others in negative ways. Do not limit my rights based off some bronze age myth that would fail any modern day ethical sniff test.

I too am happy to judge anyone based on their actions but I'm also aware that one's beliefs inform their actions and that ridiculous beliefs are not above ridicule.

And when it comes to banging on about science: It has been an effective approach. Scientists and science popularizers have been doing this for years. Carl Sagan's Cosmos had a profound effect on me and many others and no doubt the modern Fox reboot will too. The only way to convince others their points of view are delusional is to expose them to as much reality as possible.

Okay, this is getting rambly. There seem to be four points here, I think.

First, religion is doing just fine thanks regardless of what the atheists are doing.
Religion is certainly losing a grip on power and influence in our society but I suppose many people still have warm fuzzy spiritual feelings? It remains to be seen whether this is directly due to the atheists, I would suspect it's a combination of things. I know I get warm and fuzzy spiritual-like feelings while watching Cosmos. I wonder if that's the direction things will go?Second, mean atheists like Dawkins aren't helping to convert people to atheists:
Certainly, when I was on the fence atheist, The God Delusion helped push me over the edge and gave me the courage to tell myself for the first time that I was atheist. I would imagine it had the same affect on others.

Third, pushing science (e.g. reality) onto deluded religious folk is just not going to work.
People leave religion for different reasons. However, from my personal experience at least, an increase in scientific literacy did weaken my belief in religious fairy tales.

Fourth, one should not judge people based on their religion but on their actions.

The modern atheist often points to atrocities carried out by religious institutions, such as the tyranny of the Taliban or the child abuse of the Catholic Church, but isn’t it the actions of these people that are vile, not the religion itself?

I've never been able to grasp this logic and this is why I cannot imagine how decent people can keep calling themselves Catholic and keep paying lip service to the Pope.

If mail carriers were found to quite frequently rob homeowners while delivering the mail, one would blame the postal service and demand a criminal investigation. The executives at the top would be severely punished if it was shown they knew this was going on. Well, the Catholic Church claims that the being ultimately at the top is God and God Knows.

I wonder if Steele has ever actually picked up a Bible or a Koran and read it. I would say that it's often the actions of the religious that are good in spite of their religions either being seriously flawed or vile - or at least large parts of their holy books. This is why the really nasty pieces of work are often the most religiously literate when it comes to knowing - nay, memorizing - the holy books upon which the religions are supposed to be based.

There is so much here to address that I hardly believe I was even able to begin.

He was basically saying that those Mean New Atheists, who refuse to sit back and admire how nice religion is, are actually on the decline now.

No really, we're on our way back into harmless obscurity, curiosities really. Back to being atheists who roam obscure halls of academia and fringe political groups. The bright future is to contain none of this public New Atheism business. Oh no! Atheism is becoming lighter and fluffier again and religion is safe.

Well, if New Atheism means speaking your mind and calling out bullshit when you see it, then I'm not really sure where Ritchie got this from. Perhaps he thought that if he repeated this mantra long enough it would become true.

Well, another very similar article has materialized over at the Catholic Herald by blogger Ed West. Now you'd think they'd have more important things to think about, like how their bishops and cardinals keep getting caught molesting children or sheltering pedophiles or being implicated in bank fraud.

Apparently, it's no longer cool to have harsh words for religion and the newer hipper generations think religion is all cool and stuff and that the Catholic Church is just fine. No problems there.

Here's Ed West.

Amid all the warm words expressed by public figures after Pope Benedict announced his retirement one comment rather stood out. “I feel sorry for the Pope and all old Catholic priests. Imagine having a wasted life to look back on and no sex,” wrote Richard Dawkins on Twitter.

Even with the generally low standards of decorum on the site, the 71-year-old biologist’s comment caused groans.

I think Dawkins brings up a very good point. Sex is great and it's a real shame the Pope and the old Catholic priests never had it. Of course we keep finding out about their sex lives years afterwards when their cover is blown. For the majority of priests and bishops we can only hope that if they did get laid it was with consenting adults, female or male - doesn't matter to me - and not with little children. Just sayin'. If only some of these Church pedophiles could have just been caught with (legally aged) hookers like immoral politicians the world would be a better place. Yes, if only they could be as good as cheating politicians.

I personally think that Dawkins' words could have been much harsher indeed. In fact, I think he may have been restraining himself there. I've heard much worse about this pope and would have a few choice words myself as well. Decorum, eh? Right, I think he was probably using too much decorum with the Pope and his priests in this case. They deserved much less decorum than is possible within the 140 character Twitter limit. But then the article gets a little weird.

Despite Dawkins’s continual attacks on religion, the basic premise behind New Atheism has turned out to be weak. Dawkins’s grand idea, set out in a 1993 essay, “Viruses of the Mind”, is that religion is essentially a parasite that spread in human populations that had no other way of handling the daily toll of misery and grief that was our lot until recently.

Okay, Dawkins had the whole meme theory, sure. But unless I've misunderstood New Atheism, memes are not the basic premise behind the New Atheism. What the hell? Did I miss a memo here? For me, the basic premise has to do with speaking out and calling out stupid theology bullshit rather than keeping quiet and playing along. In other words, we don't believe the shit you're spouting and we're going to tell you our opinion. This cartoon from the Atheist Camel sums it up, I think.

Anyway, that was weird. The article goes on to mention some more concrete points - that the New Atheism is made up of mostly white middle class guys. But this has been known for ages within the movement and it's been the case for longer than New Atheism has even existed.

He then quotes the Ritchie article I commented on back in January saying religion is on a rebound in Britain. But he quickly follows up by saying it could also be the declining importance of religion in British culture.

Likewise, Christian campaigners on tax avoidance, debt cancellation and the living wage argue in secular language, playing down their faith.

Essentially, we have a situation here like that in certain very secular Scandinavian countries where people care so little about religion that a kind of apathetic vacuum arises where New Atheists would sound rather strident. Atheists in these regions have a kind of neutered vestige of religion to fight against. Or at least that's how I understand this part of the article. You know, sometimes I think this is the case here in Canada and especially in Quebec where the culture has become very secular. You seldom run into many New Atheists because religion is so weakened and nobody goes as far as call religion bullshit because that would be too impolite, rude or insensitive.

Anyway, in this article the primary thrust seems to be against Dawkins, Dennett and Harris. Okay fine. It's a fact that new voices will come in and they will be eclipsed some day. Already, Dawkins and Harris have met with some disapproval in the community due to opinions taken over issues like feminism, racial profiling and gun control. And so what? So long as New New Atheism continues to speak its mind and call bullshit when it sees it, I don't see a problem.

He goes on to quote a few atheist scholars who think religion isn't so bad after all and ends his article with a reference to the Sunday Assembly, an atheist church I've been covering for some time now on my blog.

Even to non-believers, the argument that religion is a damaging parasite seems implausible. In their everyday lives people see that atheism does not explain the fundamental questions and a godless world doesn’t make us happier or even more questioning. The popularity of the Sunday Assembly, an “atheist church” in Islington, or Alain de Botton’s “10 commandments for atheists”, reflect the growing belief in secular Britain that religion is not just a beneficial thing but perhaps an essential one. Perhaps that is why New Atheism is as dead as Nietzsche.

My response to the deeper questions part of this paragraph is as following: Blah blah blah.

Now on to the second part. Sunday Assembly and Alain de Botton's 10 commandments has nothing to do with religion.Holy crap does that last statement get my goat. The difference between a service at the Sunday Assembly and a regular Christian church really boils down to the second having 100% more bullshit in it than the first. Think of the church going experience, the community, the awe and emotion as the "baby." Now think of ridiculous unproven theological gobblygook as the "dirty bath water." Let's throw out the superstitious nonsense and keep the fun. Why the hell not?

Sunday, 2 September 2012

I got a lot of constructive comments on my last post on Atheism+. I jumped right onboard when the new movement was only a couple of weeks old but now my brain is starting to catch up with my heart, so to speak, and I'm starting to really think hard about whether that leap was not a tad premature.
A reader commented my recent post about my wife giving me a RichardDawkins.Net tee-shirt:BTW, the A+ logo that Richard Dawkins owns is this one. It is still A+.

Tuesday, 5 June 2012

Just a short post for today. Pardon me for what I'm about to say but there appears to be a strange convergence in the memesphere. Much of what I've been writing about seems to have fed its way back through fuzzyJungian vacuum tubes back into our collective Zeitgeist.

In an interesting taped conversation with Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett brought up the mandatory religious education courses here in Quebec again. This is the second reference I've hear. I wrote about the first here when he brought it up in a speech in Melbourne not long ago.

He said pretty much the same thing he did in Australia, but I'm rather fond of hearing about when my province gets things right. We have our problems up here. Believe me. So it's nice to hear some positive words every so often.

Thursday, 14 February 2008

Editor's Note (2012-02-18): This post was made back when I considered myself a pantheist. Things have changed since then, but I'm keeping this post here for posterity.

In this blog I hope to record some of my thoughts about my spiritual journey from devout traditional Roman Catholic to Pagan - Wiccan to be precise - and now finally to a Scientific Pantheist. (I'm very likely a Secular Humanist as well).

I do not claim to represent all Pantheists and the title of my blog is likely to offend someone I'm sure. I am in no way saying Atheism is inferior to Pantheism or somehow wrong. In fact, I still consider myself an "a-theist". I do not personally believe in the existence of a personal god, but I do feel reverent spiritual awe when contemplating the universe. I'll explain more about this later. As such, I believe I could be lumped alongside Einstein into what Richard Dawkins labeled as "sexed-up atheism." I have no problem being called an atheist, nor being called sexed-up. Mind you, I suppose he's calling the atheism sexed-up and not me!